Politics and Culture

According to Janet Napolitano, the system is designed to work, thusly:

When a passenger, who may or may not have been a suspected terrorist, gets on a plane and wants to blow it up, the government counts on a faulty bomb trigger mechanism and one or two heroic passengers to prevent disaster.

Bill O'Reilly asked this question a couple of years back and answered it in the affirmative. This prompted a reaction amongst Christmas War denialists. Let's see:

Who does it hurt to celebrate Christmas?

I grew up in Pico Rivera which is an over 90% Mexican-American, Democratic community. My parents were Cuban and conservative. Whenever they'd have Mexican cultural events in school or at city hall, I'd grumble a little about how it was unfair that they didn't have Cuban things or why we had celebrate Mexican holidays in the United States. If I wasn't busy reading books on fighter pilots or watching Six Million Dollar Man, I'm sure I would have contacted whoever cared about this stuff at the time.

So, I know how it feels to be left out of the festivities. Yet, I don't sympathize with those who wish to shut down Christmas celebrations. It's childish (I was a child in school) to deprive the majority of their festivities unless those celebrations are truly harmful or coercive; and, attending a concert or looking at a Christmas tree is dumbing-down coercion and harm to meaninglessness.

Not only doesn't Christmas cause any actual financial or emotional harms, it's totally illogical to de-Christianize Christmas. We have a holiday on Christmas. Kids are out of school. The government shuts down. Mind you, the only reason we have it is to celebrate the birth of Christ, yet no public institution can mention this fact. It reminds me of the profound stupidity of B.C.E. and other Christophobic initiatives.

To the credit of his logic, if not his wisdom, at least one man sees this contradiction.

Nor is it unconstitutional, necessarily. Christmas celebrations were constitutional for 200 years. Are our judges much wiser than those of the past? The first amendment needn't be interpreted in any other way than that the federal government can't establish a religion, like England had done. That judges say it means the dis-allowance of any religiously-tinged material in school assemblies only reflects the feelings of the judges. Different judges, different results.

Is there a war?

Yes. Just like I complain about publicly-supported political messages that don't agree with me (here and here and here), people who don't want to see Christianity propagated will do what they can to stop Christmas celebrations. They can't do anything about people's homes or radio stations playing music; they can't win at the ballot box, but they can use the legal system.

Not evil, just what they think is best.

I imagine that some Christians want to advance Christianity through public celebrations.

Not evil, just what they think is best for society.

Therefore, we shouldn't pretend it's not a kind of war.

Consolation for Christians.

Christ must be pretty powerful to create such opposition from his enemies.

(In fact, leftists have always known that the greatest threat to the imposition of their initiatives is Christianity. Get rid of Christianity and open the left floodgates. Non-liberals who hate Christmas are either extreme Libertarians or grumpy old guys.)

Action?

Cities and schools are notoriously unprincipled and cowardly. They will travel the path of least resistance. Unless parents complain, schools won't react. Even if school boards get pressure from parents, they may not react because they fear legal costs more.

Stores care about money. It's a mere financial calculation: "will I lose more money by saying 'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Holidays?'" This is not evil. I completely understand stores not wanting to alienate part of their clientele.

If you wish to preserve Christmas and while we still have a choice of stores, you might want to redirect some of your money towards pro-Christmas stores.

Look what supporters of the Martin Luther King holiday did to Arizona.

Therefore, I don't blame anybody for the diminution of Christmas except Christians or the lack thereof.

Personal Policy

I don't wish people a Merry Christmas unless I know that they're Christians: It's a greeting to be used amongst the faithful. If I know that people are Jewish, I say, "Happy Hanukkah." I don't say "Happy Holidays," as that's just dumb, as is mentioning anything having to do with Christophobia, like solstice worship. I admit that my activism is very minimal. I don't drive tens of miles to spend considerably more on products. I do try to support those things that have to do with Christmas.

Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah!

Six Million Dollar Man: The Secret of Bigfoot Pass by Mike Jahn

Great American Fighter Pilots of World War II (Landmark Books, 96) by Robert D Loomis

Baghdad, December 14: Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani says that 13 people arrested over connection to deadly bombings in Baghdad last August are to face justice and be put to death.

“We have completed 80 percent of the investigation over the bombings against the ministries of finance and foreign affairs,” Bolani told lawmakers during a grilling session in parliament on Sunday in the aftermath of the multiple coordinated bombings on December 8, which killed 127 people and injured over 450 others.

“The court was convinced by the evidence the Ministry of the Interior brought, and the 13 terrorists implicated will be executed,” Bolani stated.

More than 100 civilians lost their lives on August 19 when a wave of explosions ripped through Baghdad's civilian and diplomatic areas close to government buildings including the finance and foreign ministries.

Here.

Today:

According to reports, Tiger Woods' prenup would have guaranteed Elin $20 million after 10 years of marriage. But she could get a $5 million payout instantly.

I guess flowers won't work this time. I see marriage going in this direction, transforming into a mere business transaction, once we toss all of the religious/cultural baggage overboard.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. The combination of no-fault divorce and community property/alimony is untenable: It should be one or the other. Imagine a guy or girl getting married, working hard for the other spouse, and then their spouse deciding to split.

Pre-nups are one response.

Twitter is a better forum for this stuff. Here.